Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.1991 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur Nagar as also the revisional order dated 14.5.1992 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that a vacancy was declared with respect to the accommodation under section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner being landlord filed an application for release under section 16(1)(b) and the respondent No. 3 being prospective allottee filed an application for allotment under section 16(1)(a) of the Act. The prescribed authority passed an order dated 27.12.1991 rejecting the application of release filed by the landlord and thereafter by order dated 28.12.1991 he allotted the premises in favour of the respondent No. 3. Two revisions were filed against the aforesaid order. The Revision No. 1 of 1992 was filed against the order dated 27.12.1991, as also the order dated 28.12.1991 and the Revision No. 81 of 1992 was filed against the order dated 28.12.1991. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid revisions, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 entered into a compromise wherein the need of the landlord was acknowledged by the respondent No. 3 and the compromise application duly verified was placed before the Court. The Revisional Court in Revision No. 81 of 1992 allowed the revision in terms of the compromise and the allotment order dated 28.12.1991 was cancelled. A true copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure -2 alongwith supplementary affidavit. The Revision No. 1 of 1992 was considered against the order dated 27.12.1991 whereby release application of the petitioner was dismissed. The Revisional Court has found that the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the need of the landlord is not made out is a finding of fact and no illegality or irregularity can be found in the same. It found that the order of allotment dated 28.12.1991 in favour of the respondent No. 3 was a separate order and would have no effect on the order dated 27.12.1991 irrespective of the fact that the respondent No. 3 has compromised the matter with the landlord and seeks cancellation of his order of allotment. The premises therefore, was made available to be allotted in favour of other persons. As such it was held that the question on allotment was to be considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and hence it has proceeded to dismiss the revision.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that in so far as the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, the respondent No. 3 has himself surrendered the said allotment on the ground that the need of the petitioner was genuine and he does not require the premises in question. At the time of passing the order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 3, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had considered all applications pending before him and he found the respondent No. 3 entitled for the said allotment. In the aforesaid Revision No. 81 of 1992, the need of the landlord has been acknowledged by virtue of a compromise and the Revisional Court therein had accepted the compromise and allowed the revision in terms of the compromise consequently it can be safely said that in the Revision No. 81 of 1992 the need of the petitioner was considered and found to be genuine. The reasoning given in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court in Revision No. 1 of 1992 cannot be said to be correct in view of the facts and circumstances of the case because once the need of the landlord is found to be genuine there is no occasion for the Revisional Court to remand the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider other applicants for allotment of the accommodation. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 14.5.1992 and 27.12.1991 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order is passed as to costs.;